I am all for it except the last phrase “resulting in a development of new species”. In spite of what you can or cannot do to fruit flies, bacteria, or the such, I see no compelling evidence that our dog will or could become a bear if that is what was necessary to survive(thicker fur, ability to hibernate), or that what now exists in human form originated from a low level organism. According to some of the more educated, enlightened and tolerant among us, that makes me an imbecile and I should die. Who knew?[/quote]
I’ve already addressed this, but I’ll do it again. Species is defined as a reproductively isolated group. That’s it.
I think you’re oversimplifying this a bit. A dog will never change into a bear, rather they will only further diverge from their common ancestry. At one point dogs and bears had a common ancestor, and it took millions and millions of years for the descendants to eventually evolve into different organisms, in this case dogs and bears. What is so hard to believe about large differences being made up of thousands of smaller differences? You said you accepted micro-evolution, so just take that and extend it a few million years. The many instances of micro-evolution can only do one thing: compound.
Think about it. That’s the only logical conclusion.
I just remembered something Richard Dawkins makes a compeling argument in Selfish Gene. About whether or not the distiction living and non-living is as set in stone as we beleive.
I dont remeber his argument entirely but being alive is tough to define clearly. For example a virus has DNA but has non of the other characteristics that biologists use to term something living.
Again gotta read his it was more involved then this.
I have no problem with anyones faith. As long as that faith doesnt tell that individual its ok to bomb abortion clinics and force its will on everyone.
When it comes to this country you have alot of religion as well as people with no religion. So when we make laws they have to be based on the constitution and bill of rights. As well as fact based observations about what can objectively be shown to be best for the nation as a whole, to the best of our abilities.
So when it comes to abortion or gay marriage or whats tought in the schools. I dont want your religious books to be a source of what we should ALL do. It fine if you follow it to the letter yourself, but dont force the rest of us too.
If you agree to that then I would defend anyones right to practice or not practice a religion.
I am all for it except the last phrase “resulting in a development of new species”. In spite of what you can or cannot do to fruit flies, bacteria, or the such, I see no compelling evidence that our dog will or could become a bear if that is what was necessary to survive(thicker fur, ability to hibernate), or that what now exists in human form originated from a low level organism. According to some of the more educated, enlightened and tolerant among us, that makes me an imbecile and I should die. Who knew?
I’ve already addressed this, but I’ll do it again. Species is defined as a reproductively isolated group. That’s it.
I think you’re oversimplifying this a bit. A dog will never change into a bear, rather they will only further diverge from their common ancestry. At one point dogs and bears had a common ancestor, and it took millions and millions of years for the descendants to eventually evolve into different organisms, in this case dogs and bears. What is so hard to believe about large differences being made up of thousands of smaller differences? You said you accepted micro-evolution, so just take that and extend it a few million years. The many instances of micro-evolution can only do one thing: compound.
Think about it. That’s the only logical conclusion.
[/quote]
The time frame is even longer then a few million, I believe the current estimate is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
But I agree its just extending the idea you already except. As is stated in this post.
I am all for it except the last phrase “resulting in a development of new species”. In spite of what you can or cannot do to fruit flies, bacteria, or the such, I see no compelling evidence that our dog will or could become a bear if that is what was necessary to survive(thicker fur, ability to hibernate), or that what now exists in human form originated from a low level organism. According to some of the more educated, enlightened and tolerant among us, that makes me an imbecile and I should die. Who knew?
I’ve already addressed this, but I’ll do it again. Species is defined as a reproductively isolated group. That’s it.
I think you’re oversimplifying this a bit. A dog will never change into a bear, rather they will only further diverge from their common ancestry. At one point dogs and bears had a common ancestor, and it took millions and millions of years for the descendants to eventually evolve into different organisms, in this case dogs and bears. What is so hard to believe about large differences being made up of thousands of smaller differences? You said you accepted micro-evolution, so just take that and extend it a few million years. The many instances of micro-evolution can only do one thing: compound.
Think about it. That’s the only logical conclusion.
[/quote]
Can I see this common ancestor in any way, shape or form?
I am all for it except the last phrase “resulting in a development of new species”. In spite of what you can or cannot do to fruit flies, bacteria, or the such, I see no compelling evidence that our dog will or could become a bear if that is what was necessary to survive(thicker fur, ability to hibernate), or that what now exists in human form originated from a low level organism. According to some of the more educated, enlightened and tolerant among us, that makes me an imbecile and I should die. Who knew?
I’ve already addressed this, but I’ll do it again. Species is defined as a reproductively isolated group. That’s it.
I think you’re oversimplifying this a bit. A dog will never change into a bear, rather they will only further diverge from their common ancestry. At one point dogs and bears had a common ancestor, and it took millions and millions of years for the descendants to eventually evolve into different organisms, in this case dogs and bears. What is so hard to believe about large differences being made up of thousands of smaller differences? You said you accepted micro-evolution, so just take that and extend it a few million years. The many instances of micro-evolution can only do one thing: compound.
Think about it. That’s the only logical conclusion.
Can I see this common ancestor in any way, shape or form?
[/quote]
No necassrilly but it is infered from the evidence. Can you prove that species just appeared?
[quote]knuckles wrote:
You asked a question and I gave you my answer. From a scientific standpoint, there isn’t a “reason” (atleast not in the sense you’re talking about) for anything. That is purely spiritual.
[/quote]
Either way, it was decent debating with you. I don’t believe anything that you do, however, and frankly, I am very happy I don’t see the world that way. To each his own, however.
[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
I have no problem with anyones faith. As long as that faith doesnt tell that individual its ok to bomb abortion clinics and force its will on everyone.
When it comes to this country you have alot of religion as well as people with no religion. So when we make laws they have to be based on the constitution and bill of rights. As well as fact based observations about what can objectively be shown to be best for the nation as a whole, to the best of our abilities.
So when it comes to abortion or gay marriage or whats tought in the schools. I dont want your religious books to be a source of what we should ALL do. It fine if you follow it to the letter yourself, but dont force the rest of us too.
If you agree to that then I would defend anyones right to practice or not practice a religion.
[/quote]
I would think the ones trying to force anyone to do anything happen to mostly come from one particular side of the political fence lately. I personally don’t care if two gay people get married. It has nothing to do with me. I think women should have the right to choose as far as their own bodies. I think anyone trying to force their beliefs on others has a screw loose…yet we seem to be overrun with those types lately…including this administration. I think far too many forget the concept of “choice”.
I am all for it except the last phrase “resulting in a development of new species”. In spite of what you can or cannot do to fruit flies, bacteria, or the such, I see no compelling evidence that our dog will or could become a bear if that is what was necessary to survive(thicker fur, ability to hibernate), or that what now exists in human form originated from a low level organism. According to some of the more educated, enlightened and tolerant among us, that makes me an imbecile and I should die. Who knew?
I’ve already addressed this, but I’ll do it again. Species is defined as a reproductively isolated group. That’s it.
I think you’re oversimplifying this a bit. A dog will never change into a bear, rather they will only further diverge from their common ancestry. At one point dogs and bears had a common ancestor, and it took millions and millions of years for the descendants to eventually evolve into different organisms, in this case dogs and bears. What is so hard to believe about large differences being made up of thousands of smaller differences? You said you accepted micro-evolution, so just take that and extend it a few million years. The many instances of micro-evolution can only do one thing: compound.
Think about it. That’s the only logical conclusion.
Can I see this common ancestor in any way, shape or form?
No necassrilly but it is infered from the evidence. Can you prove that species just appeared?[/quote]
Nope, I sure can’t. It is a matter of a reasonable faith based on evidences I and others have examined. So that kinda makes us even in my book. I am with X, it has been nice chatting and learning. What I have learned most of all is that I should never challenge someones faith in evolution without expectation of a good verbal butt-kicking!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Jersey5150 wrote:
I have no problem with anyones faith. As long as that faith doesnt tell that individual its ok to bomb abortion clinics and force its will on everyone.
When it comes to this country you have alot of religion as well as people with no religion. So when we make laws they have to be based on the constitution and bill of rights. As well as fact based observations about what can objectively be shown to be best for the nation as a whole, to the best of our abilities.
So when it comes to abortion or gay marriage or whats tought in the schools. I dont want your religious books to be a source of what we should ALL do. It fine if you follow it to the letter yourself, but dont force the rest of us too.
If you agree to that then I would defend anyones right to practice or not practice a religion.
I would think the ones trying to force anyone to do anything happen to mostly come from one particular side of the political fence lately. I personally don’t care if two gay people get married. It has nothing to do with me. I think women should have the right to choose as far as their own bodies. I think anyone trying to force their beliefs on others has a screw loose…yet we seem to be overrun with those types lately…including this administration. I think far too many forget the concept of “choice”.
[/quote]
Well said, I agree. I hope I didnt give the impression that I felt everyone has to accept evolution. Its just an attempt to clarify the thoeries scientific merit.
I believe intelligent design is flawed but if anyone wants to believe it thats ok with me, but its not ok to teach it in public schools because it is not based in fact and is little more then a non specific religious belief that has no place in a science classroom in a public school.
[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
its not ok to teach it in public schools because it is not based in fact and is little more then a non specific religious belief that has no place in a science classroom in a public school.
[/quote]
If that’s the case, the belief that we all evolved from early homosapiens that were cousins to other psuedo-humans based on a minority of bones that could easily be a tribe of deformed humans is also not based in “FACT”. If the goal is to only teach what we know for sure, it will be a short lesson. It needs to be explained that these concepts are THEORIES, not “fact”. I also have never seen the problem with teaching “some people believe this while others believe this”.
You don’t need proof of God, but it’s there. The concept of God is of a being greater than which no other can be conceived. If that being does not exist, then the greatest being would be the being greater than which no other can be conceived but who exists. However, since nothing can exist that is greater than a being greater than which no other can be conceived, it is evident that a being greater than which no other can be conceived exists.
This stuff is old and the subject of enough written debate to fill Manhattan, but it’s still the basis of ontological theory. Is your faith greater if you haven’t thought about it? Thomas Aquinas was a saint and he was a major philosopher, so I figure in the eyes of his peers, his faith was pretty solid. I realize this is argument ad verecundiam, but the only way I can gauge the faith of someone who I don’t know is to take the word of those who knew about him and know their faith.
Anyway, I’m just saying, if you can’t think about your faith, why do you have it? I realize one of the definitions of faith is a beleif in something for which there is no proof, but if folks are so gung-ho on that, I got a bridge to sell em. People who have no experience of it won’t know, but isn’t feeling the Holy Spirit proof?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Jersey5150 wrote:
its not ok to teach it in public schools because it is not based in fact and is little more then a non specific religious belief that has no place in a science classroom in a public school.
If that’s the case, the belief that we all evolved from early homosapiens that were cousins to other psuedo-humans based on a minority of bones that could easily be a tribe of deformed humans is also not based in “FACT”. If the goal is to only teach what we know for sure, it will be a short lesson. It needs to be explained that these concepts are THEORIES, not “fact”. I also have never seen the problem with teaching “some people believe this while others believe this”. [/quote]
The problem with teaching that is that we’d spend all of our time teaching every hypothesis in the world to explain one thing to a child. We’d have to teach the way the Catholics think about it, then the Bhuddists, the Protestants, the Islamics and so forth, when there is a theory based on empyrical evidence that can get the job done. Science and empyrical knowledge are the realm of responsibility of the schools. Spiritual knowledge and ethics are the realm of responsibility of the society or household.
Evloution is not just some guy’s idea of what might work. Every scrap of evidence that has been dug up points to it. Still, like relativity, it is “just a theory,” because it is not something that can be argued against logically, it is simply a collection of data describing phenomena in the natural world. It is a product of inductive reason, an inference from a series of FACTS, i.e., fire has always been hot, so don’t touch it, because it will be hot. One might call that the THEORY of Heat and Flames, because it is based on data collected from countless fires in countless conditions since man came down from the tree.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Either way, it was decent debating with you. I don’t believe anything that you do, however, and frankly, I am very happy I don’t see the world that way. To each his own, however.[/quote]
Nice chatting with you, Professor. I respect your beliefs, as I held them at one time. It’s never a bad thing to discuss and learn.
[quote]drp wrote:
You don’t need proof of God, but it’s there. The concept of God is of a being greater than which no other can be conceived. If that being does not exist, then the greatest being would be the being greater than which no other can be conceived but who exists. However, since nothing can exist that is greater than a being greater than which no other can be conceived, it is evident that a being greater than which no other can be conceived exists.
[/quote]
How convenient; you forget to mention that Kant destroyed this argument in 1781. And you don’t have to believe in the thing-in-itself to believe Kant’s refutation. Simply put, the whole ontological argument relies on making being or existence a predicate.
Hegel criticized Kant pretty forcefully and said that his refutation was invalid. However, in your post you threw the ontological argument out as if no one had ever questioned it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Flop Hat wrote:
Occam’s Razor would have nothing to do with the consequences, but rather the origin alone. It is simpler for you to believe that out of billions upon billions of random tries that extend beyond mathematics, chemical structures just fell together and began “living” with an innate desire to continue living? Why is that the easier concept to believe?
[/quote]
Occam’s razor doesn’t say you should pick the simplest solution it states that you should pick the solution with the fewest unproven steps.
So if we go with the christian creation it goes something like this:
God was always here. He did not need to be created and he exsist simply to exist.
The eternal God for whatever reason created the universe, life and everything.
Now for the alternative:
The universe was always here and life just exist to exsist no other reason needed.
Adding God does nothing to simplify the equation. If God made us, who made god? and if he doesn’t need a creator why do we?
And this is a little off topic, because you can belive in god and evolution as long as you are not a nut case literalist.
[quote]If he is all powerful…One of the things I’d like to ask him is what the fuck is up with childhood cancer? What the hell did those kids ever do to deserve that? Actually now that I am at it what about every other disease, infections parasite, degenrative disorder?
What the fuck?
Deserve has nothing to do with it in life.
I prefer to think those poor kids have a special place in Heaven (if there is one). It makes it easier to get through the day. [/quote]
The problem of evil is indeed a big problem. The idea that humans had one chance to prove themselves in the Garden of Eden, blew it, and now all of humanity suffers for it doesn’t cut it with me. That would indicate a mean and petty Supreme Being. The only way to explain it that makes sense is with a clock work universe that was started by a Supreme Being/Designer, whatever, and has been left to run on its own. Childhood cancer may be just a “mistake” that was inherent in the system. It may be, as Professor X said, a “necessary evil” to balance good. Or it may simply be a cruel but necessary way to keep the population in control, and these kids will, as Zap said, have a special place in Heaven for being made to suffer for the good of others.
[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
Occam’s razor doesn’t say you should pick the simplest solution it states that you should pick the solution with the fewest unproven steps.
So if we go with the christian creation it goes something like this:
God was always here. He did not need to be created and he exsist simply to exist.
The eternal God for whatever reason created the universe, life and everything.
Now for the alternative:
The universe was always here and life just exist to exsist no other reason needed.
Adding God does nothing to simplify the equation. If God made us, who made god? and if he doesn’t need a creator why do we?
And this is a little off topic, because you can belive in god and evolution as long as you are not a nut case literalist.[/quote]
Actually, the alternative is more like:
The Universe came into existance all by itself one day with a huge “bang” that no one really has proof of.
For no reason at all, “life” in its simplest form fell together from formed chemical structures that have never since started life on their own and never before had either.
Life evolved from one single celled carbon based organism that wanted to live for no reason even though this is technically the weaker choice of form considering the vastness of space and the limitations of this one planet.
This evolution expanded into several different species even though that alone should not be a requirement for survival (to have several species) as one “super species” would make more economical sense.
If we go by which has the least non-provable applications, then there is a God.
I would like to post why I am so interested in the ET.
The main reason is, it goes so much further than survival of the fittest, macro vs micro evolution an so on.
Once you have accepted that behaviour is largely programmed by the genes you come to a point were you have to admit that human behaviour is then also largely programmed by it . If you combine that with the idea that we are the genes servants and not the other way around, a lot of human behaviour suddenly makes sense.
I think it?s called “evolutionary psychology” in english and it offers some interesting ideas like “why are there different mating strategies in men and women”, " are we “naturally” monogamous or polygamous", “why do human people react to social dominance the way they do”, “are personality disorders really a conflict between genetic and cultural programming or maybe the result of it”?
The whole idea of evolution is much more powerful now that it has been combined with game theory and the knowledge of the gene and the DNA. Believe in whatever you want, but the whole theory is much more refined and complicated now than most people want to believe.
If someone is really interested, feel free to PM me, I could send you a list of books. If any creationist wants to send me a list of books, make sure it?s short and consists of the best books you can think of.
PS: No, not the last Harry Potter, books, books on ID.
I cannot prove that chemicals started to replicate on their own, but you cannot prove that it never happened. You also cannot assume that it never happened again, maybe it is happening all the time.
IF it happened that such a primitive replicator came into existence today it would immediately be confronted with replicators that are MUCH more advanced because they hang around for a few billion years now. Meaning, that replicator would cease to exist. Instantly.